Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[bennett]

9 hours ago, red23 said:

Rangers fans only celebrate VE day as much as they do to get one over on Celtic......pretty pathetic tbh.

Can't say that I've ever celebrated VE day. 

 

 

 

[badgerthewitness]

"sniggerati"

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I missed this Jackanory episode.  Which one was it?

Because only those votng No or abstaining can change their vote on a resolution.

Yeah?  Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

[Stellaboz]

Any evidence of bullying yet? 

[wastecoatwilly]

12 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

  Imagine the SFA and the SPFL setting up the outcome of the vote by lying to UEFA about a week earlier.

 

10 hours ago, kingjoey said:

No way will our motion for an independent inquiry get close to 75% support. 

 

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have just sent a letter to UEFA stating what the outcome will be...

Kinky has the ear of the clubs more than Doncaster and Maxwell.
You set yourself up like a kipper.

Edited May 8, 2020 by wastecoatwilly

[Drew Brees]

Yeah?  Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

SPFL rules prevent a yes vote being changed - only a no vote can be reversed under the regulations.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Yeah?  Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

Company resolutions are not Yes/No votes in the first place - a resolution either passes or has not passed at that point.

The problem with this vote is that legally there were still 25 days left for the resolution to pass. The deadline to affirm support for the resolution had not been reached.

Those who had not given affirmation of their support (including Hearts and Rangers) were perfectly entitled to change their minds.

This has f**k all to do with fairness and sporting integrity and everything to do with Rangers appealing to the more moronic elements in their fanbase - it's everything about tainting this year's SPFL Premiership title when it is ultimately awarded to Celtic.

[weirdcal]

Read on a paper website ( not going to accuse it of being a week researched piece) but apparently some of the information in the dossier is in breach of company law and that Robertson might be in really big trouble

[The_Kincardine]

41 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Company resolutions are not Yes/No votes in the first place - a resolution either passes or has not passed at that point.

The problem with this vote is that legally there were still 25 days left for the resolution to pass. The deadline to affirm support for the resolution had not been reached.

Those who had not given affirmation of their support (including Hearts and Rangers) were perfectly entitled to change their minds.

This has f**k all to do with fairness and sporting integrity and everything to do with Rangers appealing to the more moronic elements in their fanbase - it's everything about tainting this year's SPFL Premiership title when it is ultimately awarded to Celtic.
 

Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

[The_Kincardine]

55 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Yeah?  Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

SPFL rules prevent a yes vote being changed - only a no vote can be reversed under the regulations.

What's the actual wording of this then?

[Aim Here]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Yeah?  Where is this, "those votng No...can change their vote on a resolution" pish coming from, then?

From the leaked SPFL Resolution document

It's implicit in the statement "Once you have indicated your agreement to the Ordinary Resolution, you may not revoke your agreement".  The SPFL would have phrased it differently if both 'yes' and 'no' votes were irrevokable. Also abstaining is considered as a default 'no' vote (i.e. if you vote 'no' by abstaining, you have to be able to change your 'vote').

Edited May 8, 2020 by Aim Here

[kingjoey]

5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

What's the actual wording of this then?

This is typical P&B behaviour. If you disagree with something, then proof must be provided. It is common knowledge that if you voted 'yes' it couldn't be changed, but if you voted 'no' or 'reject' or whatever the other option was, that vote could be changed to 'yes'. If someone on here posted that a human being has to breathe to live, someone else would require proof. Pathetic.

[The_Kincardine]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

What's the actual wording of this then?

 

4 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

From the leaked SPFL Resolution document

It's implicit in the statement "Once you have indicated your agreement to the Ordinary Resolution, you may not revoke your agreement".  The SPFL would have phrased it differently if both 'yes' and 'no' votes were irrevokable. Also abstaining is considered as a default 'no' vote (i.e. if you vote 'no' by abstaining, you have to be able to change your 'vote').

So there is no provision for changing a 'No' vote then.

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

This is typical P&B behaviour. If you disagree with something, then proof must be provided. It is common knowledge that if you voted 'yes' it couldn't be changed, but if you voted 'no' or 'reject' or whatever the other option was, that vote could be changed to 'yes'. If someone on here posted that a human being has to breathe to live, someone else would require proof. Pathetic.

Not quite.  Two posters have said you can change a 'No' vote so it's perfectly reasonable to ask for how that provision is worded. It turns out that there is no such provision.

[Aim Here]

5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

So there is no provision for changing a 'No' vote then.

Not quite.  Two posters have said you can change a 'No' vote so it's perfectly reasonable to ask for how that provision is worded. It turns out that there is no such provision.

There's no 'explicit' provision to change a No vote in the leaked document, sure, but given that they explicitly have to state you can't change a 'Yes' vote, it's almost certain that, by default, votes of this nature are revokable, otherwise there would be no need for the provision making the 'Yes' votes irrevocable; likewise, if No votes are irrevocable, it would be perverse for this line to only mention 'Yes' votes.

It could well be that elsewhere in the document or in another one, there's an actual explicit rule that points this out, but I'm not privy to it.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Aim Here

[Public menace]

Wasn’t all this discussed to death weeks ago. Why go over old ground....... unless to distract from something? Like your club making claims but providing a duff dossier with no evidence to back them up???

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, Aim Here said:

There's no 'explicit' provision to change a No vote.

Thanks.  I knew this, of course, but it's better coming from elsewhere.  Maybe the 'You can change a No vote' brigade will take heed but I doubt it.

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Thanks.  I knew this, of course, but it's better coming from elsewhere.  Maybe the 'You can change a No vote' brigade will take heed but I doubt it.

If you have to resort to deliberately misquoting people to make your point, you're clearly wrong and you clearly know it.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Public menace said:

Wasn’t all this discussed to death weeks ago. Why go over old ground....... unless to distract from something? Like your club making claims but providing a duff dossier with no evidence to back them up???

There is no distraction.  People are still banging on about the fictional 'change a No vote' bollocks so it's worth reinforcing that this is as real as a unicorn.

The true truth is that the SPFL rigged a ballot - and flagged they would do so a week earlier to UEFA.  That is the real scandal 

But still, this democratic effrontery is immaterial as long as you diddies can rant about Rangers on multiple threads.  

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

If you have to resort to deliberately misquoting people to make your point, you're clearly wrong and you clearly know it.

I quoted the words that you used.  The rest of the post was flannel.

[Public menace]

There is no distraction.  People are still banging on about the fictional 'change a No vote' bollocks so it's worth reinforcing that this is as real as a unicorn.
The true truth is that the SPFL rigged a ballot - and flagged they would do so a week earlier to UEFA.  That is the real scandal 
But still, this democratic effrontery is immaterial as long as you diddies can rant about Rangers on multiple threads.  

A grown man calling those with opposing views “diddies”. Well done [emoji106]